Capital One Cites Anti-Money-Laundering Review for Closing Trump Organization Accounts
Translated from English, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- Capital One stated it closed the Trump Organization's accounts due to anti-money-laundering (AML) review findings.
- This marks the first time a bank has formally linked money-laundering concerns to the Trump family business.
- The bank seeks to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the Trump Organization's claims of illegal debanking on political grounds are unfounded.
Capital One Financial has formally stated that its decision to close the Trump Organization's bank accounts years ago was based on findings from an anti-money-laundering (AML) review. This disclosure is the first time a bank has officially cited money-laundering concerns in relation to Donald Trump's family business.
documents and Plaintiffsโ own allegations make clear that Capital One closed Plaintiffsโ accounts for anti-money laundering (โAMLโ) reasons.
The bank is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Trump Organization and Eric Trump, who allege that Capital One closed their accounts due to "woke" beliefs and a desire to capitalize on the political climate following the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot. Capital One argues that these allegations of political pretext are misguided and misinterpretations of the evidence submitted to the court.
The closures were the result of months of analysis and a careful review by Capital Oneโs AML team in accordance with bank policies and regulatory guidance.
In its filing, Capital One clarified that it never accused the Trump Organization of money laundering. However, the bank contends that the transaction patterns identified were consistent with activities flagged by federal banking guidance. Capital One provided notice of its intent to close over 300 Trump-affiliated accounts in March 2021, following months of analysis by its AML team in accordance with bank policies and regulatory guidelines.
The Trump Organizationโs allegations of political pretext were โmisguidedโ and โbased on cherry-picked quotations unsupported by the full contextโ of documents submitted to the court.
Originally published by The Guardian in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.